D&DNext: Playtest Review

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Thu May 31, 2012 6:52 pm

I wonder if they will read the comment fields. I wrote them to start over without Mearls...

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:14 pm

Korwin wrote:I wonder if they will read the comment fields. I wrote them to start over without Mearls...

They'll probably read the first few and then skim the rest (if that). At least, that's how the Pathfinder playtest seemed to work.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:17 pm

Korwin wrote:I wonder if they will read the comment fields. I wrote them to start over without Mearls...

Well, you can pretty much guarantee that will get ignored.

@Ravengm- most were 500, or seemed to be. For the rogue, I just left it at the major points:
-felt like an npc class
-the rules exceptions were more confusing than anything else, and weren't interesting enough to be class abilities,
and
-sneak attack was implemented in a clunky way that felt like it had a 1 round cooldown (hiding again), so it felt like the rogue only got to participate in every other round of combat.

As odd as it is to approach a playtest talking about how things feel, it is likely to be the only sort of feedback they actually consider.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:18 pm

As long as we're wishing for ponies, they should fire Mike Mearls and Bruce Cordell and re-hire Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Rob Heinsoo, and try to steal Jon Chung from White Wolf.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:23 pm

Voss wrote: -sneak attack was implemented in a clunky way that felt like it had a 1 round cooldown (hiding again), so it felt like the rogue only got to participate in every other round of combat.

That's deliberate! They explicitly said that the rogue is intended to spend time in combat running away, etc.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:31 pm

hogarth wrote:
Voss wrote: -sneak attack was implemented in a clunky way that felt like it had a 1 round cooldown (hiding again), so it felt like the rogue only got to participate in every other round of combat.
That's deliberate! They explicitly said that the rogue is intended to spend time in combat running away, etc.

On the one hand, the rogue sitting there and not doing anything when the monster turns his attention on him isn't something you expect the rogue to do. He has low HP and low armor, he honestly shouldn't be in melee, but he is anyway, because that's what rogues do.

Like I can more or less agree with that much of it. Rogues should be willing to back off and hide when the attention focuses on them. But it should be less "I have to do this every round to keep my damage up no matter what" and more "Oh shit the monster's after me, hide!".

Something like a reaction ability that lets you oppose a melee attack roll with a hide check, to make the attack miss and you duck into the nearest concealment would be flavorful and get the point across without making it seem like so much shit.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu May 31, 2012 7:40 pm

Someone should point out that the rogue does less dmg while sneak attacking than the fighter does all the time at level 1.

Ps. I didn't get the survey, do you get them on the e-mail you signed up with or your wotc account?

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:49 pm

Yeah, you do.

Anyway, I just listed it as "too much DM fiat, cleric > allies, wizards suck". I'm sure they won't listen.

unnamednpc · Post by **unnamednpc** » Thu May 31, 2012 8:58 pm

It should go to the email you signed up with.

I "told" them in the comments that the Rogue "feels" ineffective and not very Roguelike, because I figure whatever OCR program or 3rd world freelancer they'll get to parse the comments will most likely be drilled to watch for the touchy feely bullshit that permeated the entire playtest.

Also, that survey? Some of those terrible "what X are you?" bullshit personality tests I've seen had more substantial questions.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:17 pm

unnamednpc wrote:I "told" them in the comments that the Rogue "feels" ineffective and not very Roguelike,

I disagree. In my opinion, the Rogue and all of the other character classes for that matter feel very Roguelike in the sense that there is marginal internal improvement up to and including the high end of the game such that 20 low-level are still a threat, success is very much related to equipment drops you can't control, you have little to do outside the combat minigame and the plot advances when the script says it should, and... and...

Oh. Oh, I see.

Seerow · Post by **Seerow** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:21 pm

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ ... dule?sdb=1

This should be fun.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:29 pm

hogarth wrote:
Voss wrote: -sneak attack was implemented in a clunky way that felt like it had a 1 round cooldown (hiding again), so it felt like the rogue only got to participate in every other round of combat.
That's deliberate! They explicitly said that the rogue is intended to spend time in combat running away, etc.

Don't care if it is intentional. It is boring as fuck, and they did it with the expectation that you'll use hide a lot, and even with all the Special Rogue Exemptions to the hide skill, it still isn't practical to actually use it in combat. So all that is left is a midget sheepherder with a sling, cowering the back.

And of course that doesn't even touch the fact that against many of the low level monsters, if you hit them once, they just _die_, so sneak attack doesn't even do anything in a lot of fights.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:35 pm

That rules modularity crap applied to resource management systems is probably the most spectacular way in which the rule system will break down. It's theoretically possible for a system which gives At-Will to one guy, Drain or Spell Charges or Rage Meter to the other guys to be balanced but that is predicated on a level of extreme care I don't think that the game devs have. It barely worked for 4E D&D and they already pre-neutered the gaming engine before trying out Melee Basic Attack stacking for many Essentials classes or At-Wills & Spell Points for Psionics.

Just look at what happened with the wizard and the sorcerer. The wizard was very much better than the sorcerer despite being extremely similar in spell selection just because of the resource management system. And would have even remained so if the bonus feat accumulation was flat-out switched.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Thu May 31, 2012 9:43 pm

Want to run a low-magic game?
We can make the rules for (...) criteria for ability score requirements for spellcasters,(...)

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... 3/20120529

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Thu May 31, 2012 11:27 pm

Voss wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Voss wrote: -sneak attack was implemented in a clunky way that felt like it had a 1 round cooldown (hiding again), so it felt like the rogue only got to participate in every other round of combat.
That's deliberate! They explicitly said that the rogue is intended to spend time in combat running away, etc.
Don't care if it is intentional. It is boring as fuck [etc...]

I agree. I'm just saying that if your comment was along the lines of "the rogue has to waste every other turn hiding again", Mike Mearls's reaction may be "excellent, everything is going perfectly!"

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:29 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:As long as we're wishing for ponies,

Got mine.

A guy in my group brought D&D next in for us to test. I purposefully made sure to learn nothing about it as to not taint my opinions.

I am weak in the maths, so a lot of things don't jump out at me. And I was playing the wizard, so that changes my opinion, but the game does in fact have potential to be fun. I didn't much care that I was required to move before acting or not move at all, and I though the 1st level cleric spell that did 4d6+wis damage at first level was a little over the top compared to what my first level spells were.

K · Post by K » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:57 am

So I got my playtest survey. Mostly is was asking me a line by line happiness rating for each of the abilities.

I did find one part amusing. They asked something like "allowing the DM to adjudicate all the rules." It's like they think that not having a complete ruleset is some kind of feature.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:38 am

Ugh, you actually filled that thing out? Chunk it.

No, wait! Fill it in with totally misleading crap that will sink the edition! Stuff like 'the fighter doesn't feel oldschool enough' and 'I find not having a skill list very empowering!'. Hang on, I need to check my Inbox.

Silent Wayfarer · Post by **Silent Wayfarer** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:15 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:As long as we're wishing for ponies, they should fire Mike Mearls and Bruce Cordell and re-hire Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Rob Heinsoo, and try to steal Jon Chung from White Wolf.

Jon's not from White Wolf, he's just a guy who's good with the mechanics that pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Though ETP did steal a bunch of his ideas.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:19 am

I figure at this point they should just stealthily rerelease 4e Essentials as D&DN

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:22 am

Silent Wayfarer wrote:
Lago PARANOIA wrote:As long as we're wishing for ponies, they should fire Mike Mearls and Bruce Cordell and re-hire Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Rob Heinsoo, and try to steal Jon Chung from White Wolf.
Jon's not from White Wolf, he's just a guy who's good with the mechanics that pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Though ETP did steal a bunch of his ideas.

If they tossed out all the grogtards and hired Jon Chung to write the new rules in a month, I would buy ALL the books.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:45 pm

Did anyone else see the old sheets on enworld?

EDIT: In which Mearls faps to "make shit up."
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20120531

infected slut princess · Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:18 am

My impression is that Mike Mearls is fucked. Even the comments on the WotC article page are not favorable to this philosophy, which is surprising because I thought anyone dedicated enough to leave a comment on the WotC site would be yearning to blow Mearls.

And this philosophy _is_ the defining feature of 5e so far.

koz · Post by **koz** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:37 am

Well, he's dodged a lot of Christmas layoffs, and given the iterative probability factor, he's likely next. He may have bought himself some time with this excuse for a new edition, but I suspect, much like with 4E, when it begins to fail, he'll be removed as well. Which is amusing, because this will mean that very soon, DnD will be populated with last-chance MtG folks (like Tom LaPille), who basically suck anyway.

My statement that DnD is now the Last Chancers of WotC seems more apt by the day...

Sashi · Post by **Sashi** » Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:45 am

A huge number of people who post to the WotC site are heavily invested in the 4E tactical minigame because that's all that exists in 4E. 5E guts the tactical minigame and says "Make something up and have fun lol".